Tell me about Ralph Nader...

I've always voted Republican including our current President. I'm on the fence now - not between Bush or Kerry, but between whether I should vote for either or vote at all. Any disallusioned conservatives here considering Ralph Nader? Understood, it would be a vote cast to the wind, but I need to exercise my democratic right to vote...

Why would any self-described conservative vote for Ralph Nader? He's made his career out of consumer activism and otherwise bashing corporatism. His most visible project is Public Citizen, (though he's no longer associated with it).

Thanks, I actually found that site yesterday when my thoughts turned in this direction. I was more curious as to what individual views were more than his website spin.

IJ Reilly said:

He's made his career out of consumer activism and otherwise bashing corporatism.

Click to expand...

I found this quote interesting in the article I linked to above -

RN: Concentrated corporate power violates many principles of capitalism. For example, under capitalism, owners control their property. Under multinational corporations, the shareholders dont control their corporation. Under capitalism, if you cant make the market respond, you sink. Under big business, you dont go bankrupt; you go to Washington for a bailout.

I also thought this was interesting -

PB: Can we move on to taxes? Reagan cut the top tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent in terms of personal income taxes. Clinton raised it to 39.6. Bush has cut it back to 35 percent. What do you think is the maximum income-tax rate that should be imposed on wage earners?

RN: Zero under $100,000. Now you got to ask me how I am going to make 

PB: What is the rate above $100,000? What is the top rate?

RN: Then you have a graduated rate. Thirty-five percent, in that range, for the top rate. It comes down to the loopholes. When it was 70 percent, did you ever meet anybody who paid 70 percent? Now, where would I make it up? This is where the creativity comes in. I would move the incidence of taxation, first, from work to wealth. So I would keep the estate tax, number one.

I don't need any persuading. I voted for Nader in 2000, mainly because I appreciate that he understands the dangers of the ever-expanding corporate state we live in today. Won't be voting for him this year, though -- that's for sure.

I heard that even nader's running mate from 2000 Winona LaDuke isn't going to vote for Ralph this time.

I can see your interest in voting for Nader as a protest to Bush, but a true protest vote against Bush would be to vote for Kerry. I've had conversations with a few conservatives who are so aghast at what bush has done that they're hoping he loses the election. Bush has ballooned the debt which amounts to a deferred tax increase, and a huge one at that. If we don't get someone responsible and able to deal with reality we'll truly be screwed.

Yeah, I totally understand the conservative point of view, and respect it, even being a liberal myself (and I mean the classic definitions of liberal and conservative, not what daytime news shows would have you believe today).

But Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, et al, are not conservative by any stretch of the measure. They are extremists.

Quote: Just as the world doesnt break down into two neatly divided groups of good people and evildoers, the U.S. electorate doesnt break down into two neatly divided groups of Democrats and Republicans. In fact, many voters have negative impressions of both major parties, and view the stagnant duopoly that is the modern American political system as an interminable bout between two evils.

Nader is a good guy. Early on he was a proponent of worker and consumers rights. There was the infamous case of the car company who decided it would be cheaper to pay lawsuits than issue a recall of a defective product that he brought to public attention. Lately, he has lost sight of the big picture, I feel.

As an independant, I was going to vote for Nader. Like many others, it would have been a protest vote mostly. I just didn't bother voting. This year I am voting for Kerry simply to vote against Bush. Simple as that. If you are a rebublican, and do not like Bush, you can either vote third party, or just not vote. I would like to convince you to vote for Kerry as well (he's not as liberal and flip-floppy as Bush would have you believe if you listen to him), but it would be faint praise at best.

Despite what people say, there is nothing wrong with not voting if you do not see a viable candidate. It is your right to abstain. You can also vote for another third party candidate. Like Michael Badnarik, who is a libertarian. There aren't many conservative third parties that I can think of however.

solvs, I was a hot-rodder before Nader ever wrote his "Unsafe At Any Speed", focussed on the Corvair. I thought he was full of beans then, and my further years of experience messing with cars only reinforced this view.

He did do some good; his group's study of pollution of the Savannah River was a high-point milestone. IMO, probably better than "Silent Spring".

My overall problem with him and consumer-protection is that he seems to believe that if we write enough regulations about "things", there will never be any more need for personal responsibility about safety.

Nader was on Chuck Harder's "For The People" radio show, a few years back. For over an hour, they foamed at the mouth about the Tri-Lateral Commission and the Bilderbergs, talking about how "They" are trying to wreck the U.S. economy. Why people who want to make lots of money would want to wreck the buying power of the world's largest marketplace was never explained...

So, from 40 years of casual observation of this creature, I just don't see him as any sort of serious thinker...Sincere, yeah; so? Strong beliefs do not create truth.

solvs, I was a hot-rodder before Nader ever wrote his "Unsafe At Any Speed", focussed on the Corvair. I thought he was full of beans then, and my further years of experience messing with cars only reinforced this view.

Click to expand...

Actually, I was talking about the station wagon that expolded on impact. The Pinto, wasn't it? You can think what you want, but the man may have saved some lives. If nothing else bringing the company's corruption to light.

Quote

So, from 40 years of casual observation of this creature, I just don't see him as any sort of serious thinker...Sincere, yeah; so? Strong beliefs do not create truth.

Well, yeah, a Pinto would indeed catch fire if it was stopped and got hit in the butt--at 80 mph, as happened to the four girls of the lawsuit against FoMoCo. I didn't know Nader was ever involved...His deal was the Corvair, which by the time of the book no longer had a swing axle (like a Porsche or VW) but had gone to a full-bore IRS. Like I said, full of beans.

Problem with the Pinto deal was, the incidence for all cars of that size category, for fires after rear-end collisions, was about the same as for the Pinto. FWIW, it was higher for Toyotas of that era.

I've heard both sides of the story. Here is a good synopsis of the issues at hand. Some for, some against.

Maybe he is a slightly misunderstood but well meaning man who can make mistakes (like Bush)... or he's an evil, lying, bastard (like Bush). Either way, cars are safer now. Even if he just helped that along by being an annoying douche-bag. I'm sure the families of those few people that got killed because the cars exploded when the company decided against a recall are ok with that because it was only a few cars statistically.

I'm aware of the arguable facts, but am more content with the outcome.

solvs, I doubt any of us are against improvements in consumer safety. I do raise an eyebrow when I see labels atop stepladders, however. Or the warning label on the sunvisor of an SUV.

What I despise about the methodology of consumer protection is the sequence: First, some doofus picks up a lawnmower by its shroud in order to trim a hedge. He loses some fingers. He sues the manufacturer and wins, courtesy of the changes in tort liability laws and the "deep pockets doctrine". The manufacturer then redesigns the mower with a "dead man" throttle and clutch. I gotta then pay for this extra garbage, even though I'm smart enough to not put myself in a position to lose fingers.

Question: Why should ALL of us have to pay extra, on account of one or two doofi?

Nader's ideas contributed strongly to the idea that individuals bear no responsibility for the consequences of their actions. There's too much of "The ends justify the means." to suit me.

That's why I'm often unimpressed by sincerity, and claim it doesn't create truth. Hell's bells, Hitler and Lenin were sincere...(No, I'm not saying Nader is a Hitler or a Lenin. While the sincerity can easily be seen as similar, Nader's goals are benign.)

Road to Hell is paved with good intentions, I guess. There's got to be some kind-of middle ground between executives releasing unsafe products thinking they can get away with it, or raiding pensions, and window washing fluid that says "Do not drink or spray in eyes". Survival of the fitest, but protection of the weaker. That would include children and the handicap as well as people who are just stupid (or unucky). While you may be able to blame him for making things more expensive and complicated, by that same right he has also made things safer.

Some people believe the world isn't fair, you must make it that way. Unfortunetly the system is not perfect, and what is meant to punish the guilt can also adversly affect the innocent. It just depends on if the ends justify the means.

What I despise about the methodology of consumer protection is the sequence:

Click to expand...

Did ya ever stop to think that maybe the lawnmower company liked the idea of ensuring that its customers kept all their fingers?

Due to the design of my car (a VW), it's virtually impossible for me to lock the keys in the car. The car requires the door to be closed and the lock to be engaged from outside the vehicle with the key (or by pressing the remote transponder). The inconvenience is that I lose the ability to press the lock the driver's side door while it's open.

The upshot is that I've never been locked out of a VW. Why would I complain about simple, ingenious engineering that keeps me safe?

And don't you have the freedom to find another brand that doesn't have a 'dead man stick'? And if you can't find one, isn't that a segment of the market waiting for an entrepreneur to capitalize on? And if it's not a viable segment of the market, well then that's too bad isn't it?

Warning lables don't cost you anything either. Ok, maybe a couple pennies. They spend more on packaging, but you aren't heated up about that, right?

solvs, there's much less liklihood of executives releasing an unsafe product than there is in a stonewalling behavior pattern when something turns out to be unsafe.

Just to stay with lawnmowers for a bit: Who would ever believe somebody would actually pick up a power-mower by the shroud to use as a hedge-trimmer? Hokay: All of us now are mandated by law to pay for the dead-man controls, plus the little spring-loaded flap-door on the back of the shroud which protrudes below it and prevents your dragging it back over your foot.

Fine.

So Dudley Doofus takes out his baling wire and defeats the dead-man controls, and either removes or wires the flap-door open.

A rock or nail is thrown out the little flap-door and he then sues the manufacturer (after removing all the wire). He may lose in court, but the manufacturer still has to pay some lawyers--and it ties up a court for some amount of time...

My own big-picture dislike of all this is that society at large comes to believe that all dangerous implements should be idiot proof. (E.g., some studies have shown that with seat belts and air bags, more people are driving more aggressively than in the past.)

My own big-picture dislike of all this is that society at large comes to believe that all dangerous implements should be idiot proof. (E.g., some studies have shown that with seat belts and air bags, more people are driving more aggressively than in the past.)

Click to expand...

I'd venture that the increased amount of traffic on the road, coupled with the improved handling and ability to safely maintain stability at high speed in today's newer vehicles leads to more aggressive driving. The immediacy of a car's handling characteristics are surely a more important factor in how comfortable a driver is in driving dangerously than are the passive safety features.

Desertrat said:

solvs, there's much less liklihood of executives releasing an unsafe product than there is in a stonewalling behavior pattern when something turns out to be unsafe.

Just to stay with lawnmowers for a bit: Who would ever believe somebody would actually pick up a power-mower by the shroud to use as a hedge-trimmer? Hokay: All of us now are mandated by law to pay for the dead-man controls, plus the little spring-loaded flap-door on the back of the shroud which protrudes below it and prevents your dragging it back over your foot.

Fine.

So Dudley Doofus takes out his baling wire and defeats the dead-man controls, and either removes or wires the flap-door open.

A rock or nail is thrown out the little flap-door and he then sues the manufacturer (after removing all the wire). He may lose in court, but the manufacturer still has to pay some lawyers--and it ties up a court for some amount of time...

Click to expand...

The problem with your argument is that you're operating on fictional anecdotes.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.